Analytic thinking undermines belief because, as cognitive psychologists have shown, it can override intuition. And we know from past research that religious beliefs—such as the idea that objects and events don't simply exist but have a purpose—are rooted in intuition. "Analytic processing inhibits these intuitions, which in turn discourages religious belief," Norenzayan explains.

It seems that there are good reasons for religious members posting homilies rather than reasoned responses to our questions. They must have strong intuitions that thinking is dangerous.

I am a "Religious Person" who posts here, and I am also well trained and experienced in The Natural Sciences ... and I THINK -- very well, and often ...

The Title of the thread is essentially wrong and two the three quote posted are easily rebutted, Tielhard already has. The Science article begins “People who are intuitive thinkers are more likely to be religious, but getting them to think analytically even in subtle ways decreases the strength of their belief, according to a new study in Science.”

Analytically thinking in in subject area weaken some belief and strengthens other areas.

“. "To understand religion in humans," Gervais says, "you need to accommodate for the fact that there are many millions of believers and nonbelievers."

Religion is more than just theism , Even Christianity is about more than “God/Christ” . Atheism is like saying “there is no human like life form any where else in the Universe”. Both require a belief in a negative.

Religion is more than just theism , Even Christianity is about more than “God/Christ” . Atheism is like saying “there is no human like life form any where else in the Universe”. Both require a belief in a negative.

Do you have beliefs that Aphrodite, Zeus, Thor, Wotan, Vishnu, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy don't exist?

You're continued insistance that there is "no evidence" (and hence, no rational or reason to think God exists), is a matter of perspective and opinon.

Since when does evidence come down to opinion? Or that it's an opinion that evidence doesn't exist? Evidence either existsor it does not. If you think there is actual, verifiable evidence for any god, then please present it.

As I said, anybody can bog things down with elaborate specifics. I tend to analyize things by pulling back and looking at the bigger picture. What is, really, being proposed.

This is the opposit approach to science, where we look closer and closer to details to find out what it true in reality. Your way of thinking is OK for theology or bad philosophy, because it feels good. But as science and modern reasoning it is obsolete. It doesn't get us closer to truth. You stand back and get a perspective that is more vague and less specific.

Going around declaring bare opinion, based upon only one perspective, as objective fact, and then turning around that vast swaths of humanity have essentially been hoodwinked by some sort of mass delusion is an incredible claim.

I notice you're not pointing to anything I actually said. What's the problem?

There is no more rational reason for me to think that Christ, Muhammed and Baha'u'llah (to name only a few) were themselves either delusional or outright willfull liars -- and that my sentient ability to reflect back upon myself and surrondings in a perceptive manner of potential understanding is just a matter of random chance and bio-organic process -- than there is reason for me to think Santa Claus really did bring me presents when I was a kid.

This is poor reasoning. Here's why: 1. you are assuming that a supernatural exists that would make these men's claims true; 2. you are assuming the stories are true about them; 3. that you assume the only alternative is that these men lied, and the written accounts about them were not to blame; 4. that our sensory experience isn't merely biological since there is nothing in evidence to suggest some supernatural element; 5. and that to "prove" the validity of your beliefs you have to compare it to the absurdity of belief that Santa exists.

If your thinking is such that your views are true because an unrelated alternative is absurd, then you have failed at reasoning. Reasoning has to follow evidence to a valid conclusion. You should be able to defend it when challenged.

You can disagree, of course, but quit having the audacity to suppose your opinon is the only rational one.

You haven't shown us that your views are rational. Why don't you try now?

You're continued insistance that there is "no evidence" (and hence, no rational or reason to think God exists), is a matter of perspective and opinon.

Since when does evidence come down to opinion? Or that it's an opinion that evidence doesn't exist? Evidence either existsor it does not. If you think there is actual, verifiable evidence for any god, then please present it.

As I said, anybody can bog things down with elaborate specifics. I tend to analyize things by pulling back and looking at the bigger picture. What is, really, being proposed.

This is the opposit approach to science, where we look closer and closer to details to find out what it true in reality. Your way of thinking is OK for theology or bad philosophy, because it feels good. But as science and modern reasoning it is obsolete. It doesn't get us closer to truth. You stand back and get a perspective that is more vague and less specific.

Going around declaring bare opinion, based upon only one perspective, as objective fact, and then turning around that vast swaths of humanity have essentially been hoodwinked by some sort of mass delusion is an incredible claim.

I notice you're not pointing to anything I actually said. What's the problem?

There is no more rational reason for me to think that Christ, Muhammed and Baha'u'llah (to name only a few) were themselves either delusional or outright willfull liars -- and that my sentient ability to reflect back upon myself and surrondings in a perceptive manner of potential understanding is just a matter of random chance and bio-organic process -- than there is reason for me to think Santa Claus really did bring me presents when I was a kid.

This is poor reasoning. Here's why: 1. you are assuming that a supernatural exists that would make these men's claims true; 2. you are assuming the stories are true about them; 3. that you assume the only alternative is that these men lied, and the written accounts about them were not to blame; 4. that our sensory experience isn't merely biological since there is nothing in evidence to suggest some supernatural element; 5. and that to "prove" the validity of your beliefs you have to compare it to the absurdity of belief that Santa exists.

If your thinking is such that your views are true because an unrelated alternative is absurd, then you have failed at reasoning. Reasoning has to follow evidence to a valid conclusion. You should be able to defend it when challenged.

You can disagree, of course, but quit having the audacity to suppose your opinon is the only rational one.

You haven't shown us that your views are rational. Why don't you try now?

We're talking ideas, not science. I was pointing out, the conclusions that any ideas force. The ideas and conclusions that atheism, at least as largely expressed here, point to, ultimately don't seem very rational to me.

Not that science and sprituality are at odds. They are not.

But, again, I'm talking about looking at a proposal, or idea, taking a step back, looking at where it leads, and then weighing it accordingly. By that standard, some claims made by atheism are, well, incredible and difficult to accept from a reasonable point of view.

And yes, absolutey, "evidence" is a matter of perspective. There is ample evidence to give a reasonable person cause to think God exists. Strarting with -- our own ability to reason.

To deny that is to deny the obvious, and merely a weak attempt to claim atheism has a monopoly on something it simply does not. Every idealogy that wants a monopoly insists that things can be framed only a certain way. And every such idealogy tends to get huffy whenever somebody simply steps outside that frame, and points out the inherent flaws.

Hence, atheism continuing to pound the table and insist upon "evidence" -- when the evidence is more than ample. I once read that it's like a man sitting on a pile of leaves and insisting "there is no tree." The more time I spend on these boards, the more I see that.

Anyway, let's continue:

Also "Written accounts" seems like a weak deflection. And misses the point. Either way, you're making an incredible claim about someting that's obvioulsly there. That being, those figures' influence on human history.

There's no a priori assumption of the "supernatural" (whatever that is supposed to be) needed to see what is obvious. That is purely a straw man on your part.

The evidence of those figure's influence on humanity and human history is plain as day. What conclusions can be drawn from that then becomes a matter of perspective. I find the perspective that they were, in fact Manifestations of and aided by a higher power to be ultimately far more rational and reasonable than attempts to explain that away.

"Sensory experience" is also hugely missing the point. Once again, you're getting hung up on the hardware. Which seems to happen over and over -- whenever I challenge you to consider sapience -- not just mere "intelligence."

And who is "us." What is it with posters here refering to themselves in the royal third person?

And yes, absolutey, "evidence" is a matter of perspective. There is ample evidence to give a reasonable person cause to think God exists. Strarting with -- our own ability to reason.

To deny that is to deny the obvious, and merely a weak attempt to claim atheism has a monopoly on something it simply does not.

Well I don't see atheism even attempting to have a monopoly on anything. However your starting point of us being able to "reason". Well that is not proof of your god, but if it were proof of Divinity, it would be proof of all divinity. ALL GODS, not just the one you favour.

If any part of life is proof of a god it is proof of all gods. In fact more likely many gods verses one. It would explain a lot.

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. AristotleNever discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato.."A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson

And yes, absolutey, "evidence" is a matter of perspective. There is ample evidence to give a reasonable person cause to think God exists. Strarting with -- our own ability to reason.

To deny that is to deny the obvious, and merely a weak attempt to claim atheism has a monopoly on something it simply does not.

saying "To deny that is to deny the obvious" does not magically make your assertion true.

It is not obvious that just because I have the ability to reason = a devine entity exists and created the universe. I do not see how one magically follows the other. I can just as easily say Cancer exists, therefore human beings are imperfect, therefore God does not exist.

I am sure you would not let me get away with that line of reasoning, and I would apply the same criteria to you.

And yes, absolutey, "evidence" is a matter of perspective. There is ample evidence to give a reasonable person cause to think God exists. Strarting with -- our own ability to reason.

As I'm sure you're aware, there are purely naturalistic explanations for our ability to reason. Unless you can discredit those explanations and show that divine agency is the likeliest source of that ability, you can hardly offer it as evidence.

If we define “God “ as the creator, then the creation is evidence of that creator. The creator methodology may appear to the created as a big bang, as something from nothing, mudballs into flesh etc. but the beginning is that creation came from a creator or creator event tah ahs been called “God”..

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon